Published on 21 March 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 596/21 Muzafir HUSIĆ against Croatia lodged on 16 December 2020 communicated on 2 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns alleged discrimination of the applicant in relation to social benefits on account of his age and years of service.

Having been dismissed from work in February 2015, the applicant applied to be registered as an unemployed person with the Croatian Employment Fund in order to receive unemployment benefits and seek new employment. His request was dismissed because at the time of filing his request, he was 61 years old and had 41 years of work experience and had fulfilled the requirements for the so-called old age pension on account of long-term service (“ starosna mirovina za dugogodišnjeg osiguranika ”). The applicant challenged that decision before the administrative authorities, arguing that he did not wish to retire because the long-term service pension was less favourable to him in terms of its conditions and amount of pension, and that instead he wished to work until he turned 65 and fulfilled the requirements for a regular old age pension. His appeals were dismissed by the competent administrative authorities and ultimately by the Constitutional Court on 14 July 2020.

The applicant complains, under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, that he had been discriminated against because of his age and years of service. He maintains that the long ‑ term service pension was only an option, and not an obligation, under the domestic law for persons fulfilling the statutory requirements to retire earlier if they wished to do so. He also pointed out that his request for registration with the Croatian Employment Fund had been dismissed unlawfully because the domestic law provided that such a request could only be refused to persons fulfilling the requirements for a regular old age pension.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention? In particular, has he been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison to persons in an analogous situation on account of his age and/or years of service? If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim and did it have a reasonable justification?

2. What are the nature and the aim of the old age pension for long-term service (“ starosna mirovina za dugogodišnjeg osiguranika ”) under the domestic law? Are persons fulfilling the requirements for such a pension obliged to retire or can they choose to continue working until they reach the general retirement age of 65? What is the relevant domestic jurisprudence on the matter?